Brief facts of the. Case are that the petitioner sought admission in B.B.A. For which last date of application was publicized as 23-8-2003. The petitioner competed through test and interview on 24-8-2003 and was allowed admission. The petitioner appeared in 3 parts of the first semester and as a result thereof, he secured 55% marks in Course No.303 and 48% in Course No.304 securing GPA and CGPA of 1.48. Resultantly, since he could not achieve 60% pass marks and the required CGPA even for the probational promotion i.e. 1.75, therefore, he was dropped from the roll of the department.
2. The grievance being raised by the petitioner through the instant Constitutional petition is that the previous grading plan required 50% marks for qualifying while through a notification, dated 20-8- 2003 exercising powers under section 16(3) of the Bahauddin Zakriya University Act, 1975, the Vice- Chancellor has amended the grading plan by enhancing the required passing marks from 50% to 60%. The same is being challenged through the instant Constitutional petition.
3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that under section 16(3) of the Bahauddin Zakriya University Act, 1975, the Vice-Chancellor can only exercise such power in an emergency and not otherwise. In the ordinary course, the grading plan is to be framed and amended by the Academic Council subject to the approval of the Syndicate, as required by sections 28 and 33 of the Act. It is next argued that the Academic Council is ordinarily required under Rule 1 of the Rules and Procedures for the meeting of the Academic Council to meet thrice a year and under Rule 12 if it is not possible, the Vice-Chancellor can circulate the issue among the members of the Council to have an opinion but this exercise was not carried out. For the foregoing arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments PLD 1993 Lah. 141 and 2004 YLR 1560 (May).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the requirement of raising the passing marks from 50% to 60% was directed by the University Grants Commission. Since the Session of 2003 to 2005 was shortly commencing and there was no possibility of convening the meeting either of the Academic Council or of the Syndicate, therefore, to meet with such an emergent situation, the Vice-Chancellor has rightly exercised the powers under section 16(3) of the Act. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, Academic Council ceased to exit since 3-8- 2003, as the required number of members are not available, therefore, the issue could not be circulated or placed before the Academic Council. It is also submitted that the petitioner is estopped by his conduct to maintain the instant petition, inasmuch as, he accepted the admission, attended all the courses and when ultimately he could not manage to secure the required pass marks, he came before the Court challenging amendment brought in the grading plan. It is next submitted that on the very first day of the start of classes, the required pass marks as amended through the impugned notification by the Vice-Chancellor were intimated to all the students concerned. As a result of this amendment, the total result of the student was formulated and declared, therefore, at the this stage the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the same. It is lastly argued that the notification issued by the Vice-Chancellor, dated 20-8-2003 has also been finally approved by the Syndicate on 18-4-2004. Copy of the same has also been placed on the record.
5. As a right of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Syndicate has no authority to approve an action taken by the Vice-Chancellor through emergent measures without intervening approval of the Academic Council. It is also submitted that the decision of the University Grants Commission, which was communicated to the respondents and as a result of which the present impugned notification was issued was dating back 23rd/25th October, 2001, therefore, the same cannot be said to be an emergenCy in the year, 2003. It is lastly submitted that the information given by the respondents to the student regarding amendment, after they had been admitted was without any lawful authority as the petitioner had already been given admission on the existing grading plan which requires 50% pass marks.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Before entering into further controversy, the conduct of the petitioner requires to be attended.
The petitioner was admitted in the first Semester of the B.B.A. He alongwith others were informed by the respondents regarding the change in the required grading plan. He did not raise any objection at that stage. He took chance and continued his studies till the end of his semester when his result was announced and he could not qualify, only then he filed the instant petition. Therefore, continuity of the petitioner with first semester constitutes estoppel against him.
8. The relevant provisions of law for the purposes of instant case are reproduced below for ready reference:- "16.(3) The Vice-Chancellor may, in an emergency which in his opinion requires immediate action take such action as he may consider necessary and shall as soon thereafter as possible, report his action for approval to the officer. Authority or other body which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter.
' THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE MEETINGS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL.
(1) The Academic Council shall ordinarily meet during the months of February, May and November each year or whenever the occasion so demands.
(12) In case it is not considered feasible to call an emergency meeting of the Academic Council, the Vice-Chancellor may order that opinion of members on a certain issue be invited by a certain date by circulating the relevant papers among the members and decide the issue according to the views of the majority of the members who send in their opinions within time, treating the rest as neutral, provided that at least 50 per cent of the members have expressed their opinion on the issue."
8-A. There is no denying the fact that the Vice-Chancellor has the power to pass such a notification where some emergent measures required so. The explanation offered by the respondents that on the recommendation of the University Grants Commission, to bring the standard of the University at par with the other Institutions of the country, this measure was required particularly when the next session was shortly starting. It is explained that the meeting of the University Grants Commission was held in October, 2001, but the change which was to be brought was intimated to the respondents, during the mid-session of the previous session which could not be disturbed, therefore, the impugned notification was issued before the start of the fresh session. Likewise since the Academic Council ceased to exist from 3-8-2003, therefore, its meeting could not be held. Likewise the highest authority is the Syndicate, which has also approved the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor which is in line with the recommendation of the University Grants Commission to keep the teaching standard at par with all the Universities of the country through notification, dated 20-8-2003, therefore, the action of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be said to be illegal and even uncalled for in the given circumstances.
9. There may be some lapses on the part of the respondents in bringing about the instant amendment, but for the purpose of petitioner, who himself has not come to this Court with clean hands and also at the relevant time, I would not like to comment upon the same.
10. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.